The denial of entry to exiled Hong Kong activist Nathan Law, despite his possession of a valid Singapore visa, raises significant questions — not just of policy, but of internal consistency within the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA).
According to Singapore’s own immigration framework, visa applications are processed by the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA), which also handles immigration clearance. Both functions fall directly under MHA.
This means that the very same authority that approved Nathan Law’s visa weeks in advance later blocked him at the border.
MHA, in response to media queries, simply said that Law’s presence would not be in Singapore’s national interests.
A spokesperson from MHA reportedly added: “A visa holder is still subject to further checks at point of entry into the country. That is what happened with Nathan Law.” This statement notably did not deny that Law held a valid visa, but rather confirmed that he was screened and rejected only upon arrival.
But this explanation is fundamentally unsatisfying — not least because of assurances previously given by the very same Minister on visa screening and safeguards.
Back in September 2024, during a parliamentary sitting, Minister K Shanmugam addressed questions about a foreign preacher who had entered Singapore using a passport under a different name.
He affirmed that “applications from those on our watchlist or otherwise raise some questions, will usually be rejected,” and stated that ICA performs pre-arrival risk assessments using visa data, airline passenger manifests, and other sources.
He also noted that about 2,500 visitors are refused entry every month, and that “the majority of persons who are perceived to have dubious reasons or purposes for coming into Singapore are picked up either through the visa scheme or other information.”
So how did Law — an internationally known figure, listed on a Hong Kong wanted list since 2023, and the subject of a public HK$1 million bounty — pass through this system?
Law did not hide his name, background, or identity. Law would almost certainly have applied for the visa using his UK-issued Refugee Travel Document, not just used it at the border. This is significant because the document type itself should have raised multiple red flags during the visa screening process, particularly for a high-profile political refugee.
There are several possible explanations.
One is that MHA internally reversed its position after the visa was granted, realising that allowing Law to enter might have triggered a diplomatic dilemma or even an extradition request under Singapore’s bilateral treaty with Hong Kong.
Another possibility is that external parties — such as the Hong Kong or Chinese authorities — made representations after the visa was issued, prompting a last-minute reconsideration.
But none of these scenarios are addressed by the government’s vague invocation of “national interests.”
The public deserves a clear and credible explanation — especially when MHA’s own screening protocols should have flagged this case well before a visa was granted, or at the very least, led to its revocation before travel.
Parliament must press for answers:
- Why did ICA grant the visa if Law’s entry was later deemed a risk?
- Were there failures in the internal vetting process?
- Or was the visa approved properly — and then reversed under diplomatic pressure?
Singapore has every sovereign right to deny entry. But when the same authority both approves and blocks the same individual — without coherent justification — the system appears opaque, inconsistent, and unaccountable.
As Minister Shanmugam rightly stated in Parliament: “Security must be balanced with facilitation.”
But transparency must also be part of that equation — especially when public confidence in governance is at stake.
The post Why did the same authority approve Nathan Law’s visa, then block his entry? appeared first on The Online Citizen.
